Feasibility of Testing Transient Periods in RAN4 Meetings
In recent RAN4 meetings, discussions centered around the feasibility of testing transient periods in the context of RMS EVM measurements and power changes. Various alternative approaches were proposed and debated by different vendors. The outcome remains inconclusive, highlighting the complexity of defining the testing criteria for transient periods in the network.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
3GPP TSG-RAN WG4 Meeting # 95-e Electronic Meeting, 25 May 5 June, 2020 R4-2008477 WF on feasibility of testing the transient periods CMCC
Background In RAN#87e meeting, the email discussion on transient period concluded: - There is no consensus on whether the transient time capability is feasible to test or not. RAN4 CR is 261 is noted. RAN4 continue discussing the feasibility of testing the transient periods in RAN4 during Q2 and report the outcome at RAN#88 In RAN4#94-e meeting, RAN4 discussed the feasibility of testing transient period capability and captured alternatives in WF (R4- 2005668)
WF on testability issues for transient period Issue 1-1-1: Whether RMS EVM over 1 slot can represent the transient period capability. Agreements Slot level RMS EVM need to be tested even it cannot represent for transient period capability No impact on testability If it can not represent transient period capability, it does not need to be tested.
WF on testability issues for transient period Issue 1-1-2: For RMS EVM over 1 slot, whether EVM measurement procedure on equalizing is clear for UE Option 1: It can be modified when describing EVM procedure for 1 symbol. Anritsu, QC, Ericsson Option 2: No modifications are required. Nokia Option 3: no, the equalize procedure can be 1) one DMRS 2) linear interpolation 3) DMRS+ data, it cannot only depend on TE implementation. Whether 1st DMRS can be used for equalization, it will compensate on transient as a part of channel status. The procedure has big impact on whether the EVM measurement is accurate. (HW)
WF on testability issues for transient period Issue 1-1-3: For RMS EVM over 1 symbol, how to define EVM measurement procedure in the spec Option 1: Adding a new section/annex for EVM to include symbols with transient period. (QC) Option 2: It is not an issue whether we create a new section in TS 38.101, we should ensure the procedure could be correct, aligned among TE vendors, high- precision. (Anritsu, HW)
WF on testability issues for transient period Issue 1-1-4: Whether 20dB power change can represent the maximum power change in the network, if not, whether TE can provide the test condition for the maximum power change Option 1: 20 dB power step is reasonable for on-on power change. (Nokia, QC, Ericsson) Option 2: no, power change>20dB is common case under real network. If the reference power change for transient period is 20dB, it will have performance impact on network, if the reference power change for transient period is worst case(e.g.58dB), how UE vendor get known our capability without reliable test environment. (HW, LGE)
WF on testability issues for transient period Issue 1-1-5: How to ensure the transient period is symmetrically positioned Option 1: The exclusion window is defined be symmetric about the symbol boundaries. Symmetric exclusion window has been specified from Rel-15 in TS 38.101-1 (Nokia, QC, Ericsson, LGE) Option 2: Need a baseline on how to position transient period. (HW)
WF on testability issues for transient period Issue 1-1-6: Whether EVM=min(EVML, EVMH) can differentiate UE with different transient period ability Option1: Do not introduce 1us. For 2us,4us,7us can be further discussed. (QC, Ericsson can accept option1 as a compromise) Option2: Including 1us,2us,4us,7us Agreement Do not introduce 1us. For 2us,4us,7us can be further discussed
WF on testability issues for transient period Issue 1-1-7: Whether RMS EVM with DFT-OFDM measurement similar with LTE can be tested for transient period Option 1: There is not a case that we need to remove the influence of transient period with DFT-s-OFDM symbol during the EVM calculation process. (Anritsu) Option 2: no. There is not test on transient period for LTE, 25us exclusion window is specified. The concept cannot be used for transient period test. (HW)
WF on testability issues for transient period Issue 1-1-8: UL DL configuration Option 1: This issue can be discussed after the testability issues are solved. (Ericssion, Nokia, QC, LGE) Option 2: 60 kHz UL DL configuration should be discussed considering blanked symbol is introduced in the current spec. Agreement This issue can be discussed after the testability issues are solved.
WF on testability issues for transient period Issue 1-1-9: How to calculate EVM for symbols in which the transient occurs Option 1: Test procedure detail that needs to be discussed in RAN5. (Ericssion, Nokia, QC, LGE) Option 2: Transient period is different for ramp up and ramp down, it should be clearly clarified. (HW) Agreement This test procedure detail The testability on symbol level RMS EVM needs to be discussed in RAN45
WF on testability issues for transient period Issue 1-1-10: EVM budget for symbol where the transient occurs Option 1: Keeping EVM budget in square brackets. EVM values can be discussed after agreement is reached on the feasibility of testing transient periods. (Ericssion, Nokia, QC) Option 2: EVM requirement should decide based on simulation results which can meet network performance on high order modulation. (HW) Agreement Keeping EVM budget in square brackets, and EVM values should be discussed with technical justification after agreement is reached on the feasibility of testing transient periods RF requirement should be settled down before testability
